Parental-Choice Bill Readied in Massachusetts

Massachusetts would become the second state to give public-school
students the choice of transferring--at no cost to them--to any
district in the state, under draft legislation to be submitted to Gov.
Michael S. Dukakis this month.

The proposed legislation, drafted by the state's department of
education, contains many of the provisions included in the
open-enrollment law adopted in Minnesota this year.

But it builds on that model by adding programs intended to make
urban schools more competitive and to give the state a greater role in
marketing public schools to parents.

"Certainly, the energy behind the effort here owes a tremendous
amount to Minnesota," said Charles Glenn, author of the proposal and
director of the department's office of educational equity. "We wouldn't
be moving ahead on this if they hadn't moved first."

All students would be free, under the department's plan, to transfer
out of their district of residence. But all districts would be able to
decide whether or not to accept incoming transfers. The districts would
be free to determine the number of open seats available at each of
their schools, but would not be permitted to impose any other admission
criteria.

The plan's basic framework, Mr. Glenn said, reflects the
department's position that "school systems own their schools, but they
don't own their students."

The proposal was drafted as an al4ternative to a parental-choice
bill vetoed by Governor Dukakis this past summer. In his veto message,
the Governor asked the state board to begin a pilot choice program in
January 1989 and to submit "whatever statutory language and budget you
believe will be necessary to implement this program on a broader scale
in fiscal year 1990."

Department officials said that none of the state's districts were
prepared to implement a pilot interdistrict transfer program in
January, but that their bill would provide a framework for such pilots
to begin next September.

The measure the Governor vetoed was a pilot program that would have
allowed students from Boston and Worcester to attend schools in
neighboring districts, with the state and the district from which the
student transferred responsible for funding the full per-pupil
cost.

Educators and civil-rights leaders criticized that measure, which
had been sponsored by Senate President William M. Bulger, on the
grounds that it would create financial hardships for the urban schools
and would fail to protect against a mass exodus of white students from
the cities' schools. (See Education Week, Aug. 3, 1988.)

The department's proposal addresses these concerns by requiring the
state to assume most of the costs of the program. But the state's
maximum payment would be about $2,000 per student transfer, making the
new plan considerably less costly per student than the vetoed bill.

By the 1991-92 school year, the bill's author estimates, a maximum
of 2,000 students would be likely to transfer to a new district, at a
total cost to the state of $6.4 million.

More than half of this total--$3.5 million--would be used to fund
educational improvements, such as the creation of new urban magnet
schools, initiatives by teacher groups, and the development of new
cooperative programs between districts.

These programs could help to improve education, Mr. Glenn said,
"even if not a single kid moves."

The department's support for the bill hinges on the inclusion of
provisions to make urban schools more effective and to ensure that all
parents are fully informed about school choices, he said.

"If those two things are not included," said Mr. Glenn, the
department "should not support the overall plan."

"We do believe choice can work powerfully to improve education," he
added, "but ensuring equity remains our top priority."

Under the proposal, the state would also pay the transportation
costs of any transferring students who are eligible for the free or
reduced-price lunch program.

Districts operating under desegregation plans would be required to
amend their plans to accommodate the student-transfer program. The
state board would reserve the right to reject amendments to the bill
that would have a negative impact on current desegregation plans.

A statewide choice law would "fit very naturally" with proposals
toconvert Boston's student-assignment process to a "controlled choice"
model, Mr. Glenn noted.

Some 70,000 Massachusetts students currently attend schools of
choice in a number of urban districts that use voluntary transfers to
promote desegregation. The figure includes some 3,500 minority students
from Boston who transfer to nearby districts under the state's metco
program.

Choice only emerged as a state-level issue, however, after Senator
Bulger introduced his bill in the spring legislative session.

And, in contrast to Minnesota, where a groundswell of public support
helped ensure passage of the open-enrollment law, there is no organized
push for a state-level choice bill in Massachusetts.

But while the lack of an identifiable constituency could pose
difficulties during debate over the choice bill, Mr. Glenn said, "being
a one-man band on this means I don't have any unwelcome allies."

Education groups and their allies would be much less likely to back
the choice proposal, he explained, if they felt its supporters intended
to broaden the bill to include vouchers or other means of tranferring
scarce resources from public to private schools.

The draft plan was presented to the state board late last month, and
is expected to be considered by the board at a meeting scheduled for
Dec. 22.

The proposed bill will be transmitted to Governor Dukakis this month
regardless of whether it receives the board's endorsement, Mr. Glenn
said.

Web Only

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.